I don't disagree with your concept, but the problem in hockey is the delayed penalty. What happens if the arm goes up, the goalie goes off and a goal is scored only to have the penalty waived off?

Maybe same thing if a goal is deemed no goal when it actually goes in, and the other team goes down the rink and scores a goal. Or maybe you still count it anyways and just say that is the breaks with refs. I mean, if you get a ridiculous penalty called against you because the ref didn't see it like the other three did and they score, you still have that goal against you. Difference here would be it at least gives you the opportunity of that not costing you a PP goal (which I have to think happens a ton more than with the goalie pulled for a delayed call).

Maybe same thing if a goal is deemed no goal when it actually goes in, and the other team goes down the rink and scores a goal. Or maybe you still count it anyways and just say that is the breaks with refs. I mean, if you get a ridiculous penalty called against you because the ref didn't see it like the other three did and they score, you still have that goal against you. Difference here would be it at least gives you the opportunity of that not costing you a PP goal (which I have to think happens a ton more than with the goalie pulled for a delayed call).

I can't see how a referee in the "sky" would be implemented on penalty calls- other than to review certain calls, such as puck over the glass, covering the puck in the crease maybe, not sure what else- I watched a Midget AA game this year where in the last minute of a one goal game, the losing team scored to tie the game with 30 seconds left. The referees and linesmen got together and....get this, waived off the goal, because...ready? 20 seconds prior to the goal a linesman waived off an icing call that actually should have been called icing, and decided to call it 20 seconds after the fact, and after a goal was scored- REALLY? Pretty sure in hockey you cannot go back in time to review whether a call should or shouldn't have been made- especially if it affects the outcome- what if a referee says, for example, " I saw a hook out there that I should have called, but didn't, but since you guys scored off it, I'm calling it now. Sorry, no goal." See? Can't work, no way. IMO hockey is the most difficult game to officiate by far- all around, they do a pretty good job....

I don't disagree with your concept, but the problem in hockey is the delayed penalty. What happens if the arm goes up, the goalie goes off and a goal is scored only to have the penalty waived off?

Good goal if scored by the team with six skaters; no goal if the other team, since the instant they touch the puck play is dead. But you gotta admit that's really a once every other blue moon problem, while the one being tackled with new ideas is an all night every night problem. While no system would be 100% perfect, what we have now looks and feels more like 50%....in other words, hardly any better than random chance would produce No need for refs, just dress up a monkey in stripes and train it to flip a fricken coin and blow a whistle. (Anyone out there really think the officiating results would be substantially worse -- or even noticeably different?) LOL

It is correct that the NFL eye in the sky can't call fouls--yet--but that's sort of OK when you have about eight or nine other sets of eyes at field level doing it, plus both coaches. The NHL could and definitely should be the league to pioneer and champion the cause...call it the "Finally Getting the Shit RIGHT for a Change" campaign...since it's the league most completely and heinously out of it since forever. (Baseball fans will cry that it's their game and the home plate umpire who hold that crown, but whatev...)

Someone made the valid observation that all NHL fans feel the refs have it out for their team and call games sideways because of it. That may be intended to 'level the playing field' or simply gloss over the problem as either nonexistent or insoluble, but IMHO it actually spotlights even more glaringly how wildly off the tracks and extensive the officiating problem has been allowed to become--and that remains true even if the fans end up being objectively mistaken and certain teams actually are getting screwed worse than others *ahem* not naming any names but initials are Tampa Bay Lightning *

I can't see how a referee in the "sky" would be implemented on penalty calls- other than to review certain calls, such as puck over the glass, covering the puck in the crease maybe, not sure what else- I watched a Midget AA game this year where in the last minute of a one goal game, the losing team scored to tie the game with 30 seconds left. The referees and linesmen got together and....get this, waived off the goal, because...ready? 20 seconds prior to the goal a linesman waived off an icing call that actually should have been called icing, and decided to call it 20 seconds after the fact, and after a goal was scored- REALLY? Pretty sure in hockey you cannot go back in time to review whether a call should or shouldn't have been made- especially if it affects the outcome- what if a referee says, for example, " I saw a hook out there that I should have called, but didn't, but since you guys scored off it, I'm calling it now. Sorry, no goal." See? Can't work, no way. IMO hockey is the most difficult game to officiate by far- all around, they do a pretty good job....

But to me they have been doing a worse and worse job each year. And watching a ton of ECHL, the single ref does infinitly better than the NHL. Now I know, ECHL is not as fast as NHL, but it is unreal how much better officiated those games are. And I think Kerry Frasier actually put it best where he said something along the lines of these refs are getting egos and letting the power go to their head to where they would rather be right over making correct calls. I don't think you see that as much in the lower levels. (Or even 5-10 years ago). Same thing that has made baeball umpiring such a joke.

I've thought more about it, and I think that if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty (even if it is a penalty that would be overruled), it's tough luck. I mean, if a ref throws a flag in the NFL and the QB sees it, they will throw the ball down the field and take a shot. If it is picked off and the refs decide there was no penalty, it's not like the INT does not count. If a goal is scored on a delayed penalty, they don't even need to discuss the penalty because the goal negates whatever would be called. I still say add those 20 seconds and let refs ensure they all saw the same thing (or at worst didn't have a view of the infraction). Now, the refs need to drop egos to do it, but I would hope their end goal would be the best officaited game they can.

I can't see how a referee in the "sky" would be implemented on penalty calls- other than to review certain calls, such as puck over the glass, covering the puck in the crease maybe, not sure what else- I watched a Midget AA game this year where in the last minute of a one goal game, the losing team scored to tie the game with 30 seconds left. The referees and linesmen got together and....get this, waived off the goal, because...ready? 20 seconds prior to the goal a linesman waived off an icing call that actually should have been called icing, and decided to call it 20 seconds after the fact, and after a goal was scored- REALLY? Pretty sure in hockey you cannot go back in time to review whether a call should or shouldn't have been made- especially if it affects the outcome- what if a referee says, for example, " I saw a hook out there that I should have called, but didn't, but since you guys scored off it, I'm calling it now. Sorry, no goal." See? Can't work, no way. IMO hockey is the most difficult game to officiate by far- all around, they do a pretty good job....

Of course you're right that that is horseshit, you shouldn't go back 20 seconds like that but rather should make the calls in real time.

As to how we get there, the 'can't work, no way' mindset would be incompatible with any positive change, in hockey or anything else. The mind is like an umbrella: it only works when open, unless you just wanna poke at things a little. So...

It's fairly easy to envision an off-ice official witnessing a foul, let's say, an elbow to the head that's clearly visible to them because of their cameras but not to the on-ice refs, they could be simply looking elsewhere or obstructed. Happens all night, every game. We see it right on our TV monitors. Right then, the off-ice officials could just hit a button that turns on the lamp over the penalty timekeeper bench -- amber for a delayed call, and red when the offending team has touched the puck. (The ref would see the amber light in the case of a delayed penalty, and why not also hear in his Bluetooth*-type headset to signal it.) The red one blows the horn that's already there, ref blows the whistle, and play stops. The ref then checks upstairs through his headset, OK what'd we miss this time, reviews the play on a video monitor if nec., and makes the CORRECT call. (I put that in caps due to its rarity.) Once the system is fully established, tried and tested, to speed up the game some more they could potentially in most cases dispense with the on-ice ref's video review, the SkyGuy simply informing the ref about the call being made.

See? It would be hard to disagree that hockey definitely is the most difficult game to officiate by far, but extremely easy to disagree strongly with the view that "they do a pretty good job" overall, which is why IMHO measures like these are needed. So much could be done with even 1990s technology, if they would just update that far. They might even get the complicated PA thing figured out, so when a hockey ref made an announcement the audience at the arena and watching on TV could actually.........hear it

ah, progress
__________________________________________________ ____
*Bluetooth - for any lurking NHL officials who might be wondering, is a newfangled, highfalutin type of tech-knowledge-y worn in the ear that lets people talk to each other -- without wires!! I know, crazy, right??

I appreciate the thought put into your suggestion, but for all practical purposes, it is unlikely that scenario could be pulled off at the NHL level- I know for a fact that with a few notable exceptions (uhhh, Jackson) the officiating is pretty solid- do they make mistakes? You betcha- impossible not too- by its very nature, hockey officiating is very subjective- as we on this board well know, two people looking at the same play see very different things quite often- same is true for officials- what looks like an obvious penalty to the fans is often a marginal one at ice level and 100 miles an hour- Some nights the refs suck, some nights they do a great job- just like players, and fans....part of the game to me now. For the record I pretty much hated all officials of all sports at all levels until I was about 27. I've mellowed a bit since then....

There would have to be blue tooth communication or something similar- because the on ice officials would have to know which team was recieving the infraction to implement a delayed call- which would also mean that the off ice official would have authority to make real time on ice calls from watching on monitor- just seems impractical to me- I'm of the opinion that such a scenario would not improve things on ice-It would be funny to see Tortarella after the game if an unseen off ice official made a call against his team though- that alone might make it worth trying....